<p>“I don’t know about the relative positions of the holes in the clothing, but I do feel from the screaming that the shooting victim was being pinned or held in some way immediately before the gun went off.”</p>
<p>The hole in the chest is about 3.5 inches below and 2.5 inches closer to the midline than the holes in the sweatshirts. The reports of the crime lab tech and the medical examiner have been online for over a year. And the two sweatshirts were together with the outer one in contact with the gun, while the chest was about 2" away.</p>
<p>“I’ve always been puzzled by GZ’s claim that he pulled TM’s arms out to the side when the arms were clearly found tucked under the body.” It’s possible that he was checking the body for weapons, and made up the story about pulling the arms out to explain why he was over the body. </p>
<p>“I don’t think the bullet path/angle is possible from the position GZ described of pulling the gun out at hip level while simultaneously struggling with TM, who is supposed to be smothering him with one hand while reaching for the gun with the other.”</p>
<p>There are real problems with that part of Zimmerman’s story. Another thing is that he said that he carefully aimed his gun to make sure he would not hit his left hand, and when he demonstrates he is making a downward grasping motion with his left hand, as his right hand comes up to shoot.</p>
<p>There was a question about manslaughter - the jury will have the option to decide on manslaughter. This charge is included in the 2nd degree murder charge. The minimum sentence for manslaughter is 25 years, I believe, because of aggravating circumstances.</p>
<p>poetgrl…“Discussion” would be great, yet anyone who has disagreed or even asked for an impartial view of the evidence has been shouted down by the “it’s obvious he’s guilty” group. Chatting amongst yourselves about how “obvious” and “clear” the evidence in this case is doesn’t constitute discussion. It’s closer to an online railroading.</p>
<p>The PROVABLE facts in this case are few are far between. The defense only needs to provide an alternate version of events to a level of reasonable doubt, which is a very nebulous concept. The prosecution’s own witnesses have been used against them on cross-examination to a believable degree by most accounts. </p>
<p>I’m breathing just fine thanks. Perhaps those rushing to determine a verdict simply because it’s what they want to happen should pause and draw a breath or two themselves. As you said…it’s safe to do so.</p>
<p>I’m curious about there only being 6 jurors also. Seems like kind of a small amount of people on the jury. I don’t live in Florida but I thought most juries had like 10 people.</p>
<p>Capital cases in Florida use 12 jurors. Zimmerman’s trial is not a capital case…Florida statutes allow 6 jurors for noncapital cases.</p>
<p>Florida Statute 913.10
Number of jurors.—Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.
History.—s. 191, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(198); s. 87, ch. 70-339.</p>
No, under Florida law the maximum penalty for aggravated manslaughter is 15 years. I posted a link to the statute upthread if you want to search for it.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the most basic tenets of our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, weighing all the evidence. I find these concepts to be EXTREMELY important…your view may be different.</p>
<p>Of course the posters on here have no impact on the actual jury. Who ever said they did? Thank God none of the extremists on either side of this “chat” are jurors, given the disregard for even the most basic legal principles shown here.</p>
<p>The ONLY thing we know GZ is guilty of is shooting and killing TM. The PROVABLE (there’s that darn pesky word again) facts surrounding that killing are the very crux of the trial, as they will determine how, if at all, GZ will be punished for that killing. Nearly everyone is horrified that a 17 year old young man is dead, but the emotion of that doesn’t matter in a court of law. As I said earlier, if emotion were all that mattered what would be the point of having a legal system?</p>
<p>Why is the concept of trying to remain impartial so difficult to grasp?</p>
<p>"No, under Florida law the maximum penalty for aggravated manslaughter is 15 years. I posted a link to the statute upthread if you want to search for it. "</p>
<p>You’re probably right, calmom, as you’re a lawyer. But I have read a number of times that because Trayvon was a minor, the sentence could be much longer than 15 years. For example:</p>
<p>“If Zimmerman were to be convicted of manslaughter, he would face a possible 30-year prison sentence. Normally, manslaughter carries a 15-year sentence, but Florida law imposes a harsher sentence in the death of children, the elderly, the disabled and caregivers.”</p>
<p>So maybe GZ has grabbed hold of TM’s shirts around the neckline and is grasping and pulling with his left hand, then has to make sure that his own hand is out of the line of fire when he brings up the gun with his right and pulls the trigger?</p>
<p>Wolverine, do you require parties to all debates to be experts on the subject in question, or is that a standard you only require when it comes to discussing trials?</p>
<p>Jurors rightly have to meet a higher standard before giving an opinion because of the severe consequences of their decision. For most people on most topics, it is sufficient that we be reasonably well informed. That is true in a discussion on economic policy or drug laws or utilitarianism, and it is true in a discussion about a case - as long as we don’t have any real power.</p>
<p>I think that most people on this thread fall under the category of reasonably well informed about the Zimmerman case. </p>
<p>And I don’t feel the need to reserve judgment - for the purposes of a conversation on a message board - until hearing the defense because I’ve already heard Zimmerman’s statements, and his interview with Hannity, and don’t feel I’ll get a radically different account next week. There may be other interpretations of DNA evidence or injuries offered, but I feel that most posters here have already taken these possibilities into account. I hope that I would be able to change my mind if something surprising came up. I hope that you and riprorin would as well. The accusation of close-mindedness cuts both ways.</p>
<p>OK – I checked again- there is a maximum (not minimum) sentence of 30 years because of Trayvon was under age 18. (Without that fact, the maximum would be 15 years)</p>
<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> A person who has been convicted of any other designated felony may be punished as follows:</p>
<p>(b) For a felony of the first degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years or, when specifically provided by statute, by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.</p>
<p>(c) For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.
<p>NYMom is right, Aggravated Manslaughter can be up to life in prison under FL law. This means the lead detective’s reccommendation of a manslaughter charge wasn’t doing Zimmerman any favors. Manslaughter is easier to prove and aggravation is automatic. He still faces a hefty penalty if he is “only” convicted of manslaughter.</p>
<p>Wolverine, with all due respect–what is the point of continuing to insist that people remain impartial? WE ARE NOT ON THE JURY. We are not under oath. We all have the right to freely express our opinions.</p>
<p>None of us are “impartial” in real life. We prefer chocolate over vanilla. We would rather spend time with the Smiths than the Joneses. We like our kid’s friend Alex better than Amy. We choose to vacation in Florida over Arizona. In this case, many of us have been partial toward TM or GZ from the beginning and want “their” side to prevail. That is just human nature. Having said that, if I had heard ANY convincing story so far that TM was the aggressor and GZ was an unwitting victim, I would be willing to change my opinion. So far, nothing of the sort has happened.</p>
<p>I think bovertine made a good point in post 1881:
The case is sort of being presented “backwards.” Normally, the prosecution is attempting to prove that certain things happened, and that the defendant was responsible for those events. The defendant’s attorney tries to cast doubt on the scenario being painted by the prosecutor, suggest alternatives or grounds for uncertainty.</p>
<p>Here, the prosecution is in effect put in the position of trying to prove a negative - that TM didn’t attack GZ in such a manner that GZ was in reasonable fear for his life - a task that’s made harder by the fact that TM is dead. It does kind of throw a monkey wrench into the usual procedures.</p>
<p>I doubt that it will be a game changer for the outcome, but it’s an interesting twist to think about.</p>
<p>A “debate” or even a good “discussion” would actually involve acknowledgement of another point of view. Are you somehow claiming that one must be a “legal expert” in order to grasp concepts like innocent until proven guilty or impartiality?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being aware of factoids and quoting reports and media stories doesn’t mean the same thing as being well informed. Just read back through the postings and see how many different times a “fact” about the shooting could reasonably be explained in more than one way.</p>
<p>Go back a few pages and read calmom’s post about how she believes the events of the night may have transpired. She does an excellent job of trying to reasonably explain the factual evidence and how it matches up with her theory of the crime. But count the number of times she qualifies it with “possibly”, “may”, “might” etc. and note how she finishes the post by saying it’s her theory of how things might have transpired. It was an excellent summation and a very plausible theory…but GZ’s defense team will (we imagine) present an alternative version of events that may seem just as plausible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make it a “conversation”…it makes it a dictation.</p>